Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . . . 35 NEXT
 

Eleima:

Father Time:
Well that was pointless.
There's not a ton of 3 dimensional characters especially when you factor in kids shows, comedies and horror movies like this chart does.
And it's got 50 or so tropes to catalog how women are represented.
So what?

You're missing the point. The point is that there aren't many strong female characters, since women are most often cast as the damsel in distress, the evil seductress, the cheery sidekick, etc.

That chart listed all the character types who weren't strong, it didn't bother listing any that were, nor did it claim there weren't any.

Blablahb:

My point: There's no conspiracy of all men going on to suppress all women, there are many factors involved, most of them involving religion, or own choices. A mono-explanation or a conspiracy theory is folly.

Yeah, and the notion of feminism as a conspiracy theory about how all men are trying to suppress all women is a pretty classic right-wing talking point. It doesn't resemble actual feminism.

PiCroft:
If someone is violently unwilling to have their opinion challenged by something as utterly milquetoast as the proposition "Analysis: videogames as a medium has sexism issues regarding women" then that isn't the problem of the person providing the viewpoint (well it kind of is, but the moral onus isn't on them to water down their views to not offend shitbags, but for the shit bags to not be shitbags).

What is the point in the videos if not educate and appeal to those who currently see sexist ideals as acceptable? Or make those that unintentionally support sexist ideals aware that they are doing so?
If their sole purpose is just a big pat on the back for those who are against sexism then it seems like an exercise in futility to me.

PiCroft:
Also, the potential viewers aren't literally divided only into "I already know all this stuff, I am watching it because it agrees with me" and "I hate femininsts and all they stand for, I will never watch this"

No but her approach will have put off many otherwise reasonable people who feel their favourite hobby (or games within that hobby) are being unfairly singled out.

Don't get me wrong, I admire her motivations and agree with what she had to say in the kickstarter video (for the most part). And I realise that people are donating to what she has put forward, so there's obviously a demand for it.

It's just that whenever people try to address this issue, from either side, you get such a barrage of sensationalist fervor that it's hard to take either side seriously. So whenever I see a project like this, where a bias is apparent from the word go, and a single type of media is singled out from all others. The lost potential does disappoint me.

Like I say, perhaps I shouldn't expect documentaries to meet journalistic standards, but as a factual production, I do.

Smeatza:

I am not defending them.
Re-read my post.

I wasn't actually talking to/about you but re-reading your post, actually you do seem to me to be defending or at least justifying the behavior of trolls.

Smeatza:

I realise feminism is a social/political thing, but I still expect factual productions to be up to certain standards of journalism. Maybe that's just me.
She's preaching to the choir. And if she were to take and objective point of view she would be much more effective in getting her message to those who actually need to hear it and pay heed.

I hate to interrupt but what do you mean by 'objective point of view'? I understand the idea of fact checking insofar as physical realities (Release dates, platform, etc) but I don't understand what you mean by an objective point of view.

Ethnography and historiography are just two academic fields that deal with the inherent subjectivity of texts. Your choice in words, subject matter and selection of evidence all alter the information you present. Even science reports are marked by their conscious decision to use 'scientific writing conventions' to present their information, and tend to have a particular aim or hypothesis in mind (At the necessary exclusion of others). Subjectivity doesn't negate the value of a discussion, it's an inherent part of it.

To keep to the topic, how do you find the objective facts behind the social implications of games? Sure, you can work toward an intuitive and intelligent interpretation of a game and how this may sit with its broader context (As I imagine is her aim), but I can't see how you can pull out an objective account or point of view from it.

When you say people who need to hear it, do you mean the ones in your other post?

Smeatza:
The bottom line is that her series of videos will change nothing.
Because everyone who may be supporting (either intentionally or unintentionally) sexist ideals in the gaming industry will never watch it.
You can see from the overwhelming negative response that many males feel vilified by this so called documentary. Do you think that they will even watch it? let alone take it seriously? when they feel like they are being demonised?
If she were to look at things from a fair, objective point of view, rather than making her own bias blatantly obvious from the start, then this might of had a chance of reaching an audience who actually needs to see it. As it stands, only people who are already aware of the issue and have picked her "side" of the debate will watch it.

I think you're forgetting all the people who don't have a strong opinion either way. It's perfectly plausible to think that the video is aimed to educate and inform people who either aren't aware of the issue, haven't given it adequate thought or know the issue, but don't yet grasp its serious implications for gaming and gaming's place in society. I'd hate to think how difficult progress would be if the only way to it was through stubborn minorities (In any issues there are always people who will never see reason). As far as getting many people to see it I'm thinking it'll be more a marketing problem than anything else.

In all honesty I'm not sure I'll agree with everything she will say, but I think it's definitely a debate worth having.

bringer of illumination:

"OH NO! PEOPLE ARE BEING MEAN AND WACIST ON THE INTERWEBS!!!" You might as well link to any given thread on fucking 4chan and call that "Journalism".

I frankly can't fucking believe that this article was approved.

I dunno, I think a huge, ORGANIZED backlash that includes mass reporting of her videos to YouTube as hate speech and defamation of her Wikipedia page is actually pretty newsworthy.

Father Time:

JerrytheBullfrog:

Father Time:

I've never seen someone source the 1 in 4 rape stat.

And I've never seen anyone source the stupid claim that rapists think all other men are also rapists, and rape jokes reinforce that.

Sources for the 1/4 claim listed here.

1994? Oh so it's just really out of date now. Look at how low rape rates have fallen

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm

JerrytheBullfrog:

Rape jokes are bullshit anyway. OH NOES WE CANT MAKE LIGHT OF ONE OF THE WORST THINGS A PERSON CAN GO THROUGH BAWWWWW

No it's more like "WAHH we hate this kind of dark humor, quick make up some bullshit about how it's harmful so we can justify a campaign against it"

Father Time:

Homework does not entail reading biased as fuck people who already agree with you.

He quite clearly already knows what the smurfette principle is, but he disagrees with you so you gotta call him a sexist.

JerrytheBullfrog:

Homework DOES entail reading stuff from people who know a hell of a lot more about the subject and have thought about it more than you ever will. Knowing *what* the Smurfette Principle is and knowing *why* it is wrong and *why* his usage of it as a defense there was fucked up are different things.

Why can't you just explain it or link to the explanations yourself at the very least? This is basically "you do the research for my claims"

JerrytheBullfrog:

But please, by all means continue to be the rape apologist.

A rape apologist? If you don't know the difference between fictional jokes and actual rape ... you're a probably a danger to others and should be monitored at all times.

1.) Less than half of rapes ever go reported. Things do not magically fix themselves in a decade and a half. (Also, the sources are all at the bottom.)

2.) Got it. So having your pwecious widdle jokes is more important to you than the comfort and safety of people who have been through one of the most traumatic experiences possible. One in six women in the united states are raped. (The 1/4 stat, looking at it, is about college students.) *You know someone who has been raped*, odds are. And how do you think your pwecious wape jokes make her feel? Oh, what's that? You didn't think of that? great job.

3.) It is not my responsibility to educate you. Become a better person.

4.) Yep, a rape apologist. Again, read the "rape culture" article. Promoting a culture that trivializes rape, even in little ways, allows that culture to thrive, and subsequently makes it more likely that women will be abused. Sexual assault and rape DO NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM.

Helmholtz Watson:
...uh..lol. Please explain to me how astrophysics is a Men's Gender Studies department, or how geology is a Men's Gender Studies department.

Because like most (all?) scientific departments, they tend to focus exclusively on the contributions of male scientists, with any work by women brushed under the table. How many times do you learn about Ada Lovelace in CompSci?

So in your opinion, feminism is for women's equality and if they help men its a plus but not it's primary intention, correct? If that is how you view feminism, then your right to say that she shouldn't be expected to also focus on male gender issues. However, if I have misread this and your saying feminism is about gender equality, then I see no reason why she shouldn't devote time to male gender issues in video games as well.

Strawman argument. Feminism is about gender equality in its ultimate point. However, since women are the marginalized sex, it is more concerned with their rights and issues because *they have further to go*.

Screaming ABOUT TEH WEMONZ doesn't do much either besides create really long escapist threads.

It educates. It makes people think about things they don't question due to their privilege. That's the most important part. Way more than crying about perceived inequality when we're already a lot more equal.

Here's an interesting study from... a year ago? Two years? I don't remember - In a classroom/business environment, if men and women speak out exactly 50/50, where half the conversation is from women and half from men, men will perceive it as women "dominating" the conversation. They only think it's equal when it falls down to somewhere from 30-40% on the womens' part. Similarly, a group of people where exactly half are men and half are women will be perceived by the men as being mostly women.

We see equality as being unequal for us because we are so used to being the default.

Helmholtz Watson:

JerrytheBullfrog:
snip

The article was crap, apparently rape culture doesn't have to have rape involved? Then it isn't rape culture!

>The Point

>Your Head

The entire point of the article is that rape and sexual assault *do not exist in a vacuum.* There is a culture around us that enables it, that encourages it however subtly - by questioning rape victims when we wouldn't, say, doubt the word of someone that he was mugged.

To that end, one can promote rape culture without being a rapist. Without ever actually mentioning rape. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

mirasiel:

Smeatza:

I am not defending them.
Re-read my post.

I wasn't actually talking to/about you but re-reading your post, actually you do seem to me to be defending or at least justifying the behavior of trolls.

My apologies then.
I'll spell it out anyway. As unjust as their responses are it shows that a number of people who are part of the problem will become instantly defensive when directly attacked. In spite of the valid points presented to them.

The whole thing is ridiculous, she comes off as ridiculously overzealous and spiteful.
I'm not ignoring that she wants to have a discussion about the subject, I'm saying that's not how she comes off.

"Why can't I have games where women aren't portrayed as sexobjects?"

Because those games aren't interesting for boys. You have the Sims where men are soulless mannequins without ambition or drive, they do exactly what you say. Granted, so do the women, but since girls identify themselves with their female character, they don't mind that. They don't want their female representation to suddenly become a slut and cheat on the perfect boyfriend or go for a different career. Unless they tell them to.

If you want to make games for boys, that are politically correct, you'll have to convince girls to play them and there's the problem; The same girls who'll get The Sims, won't buy "Uncharted - the Adventures of Drakina" or "Hitwoman - the plain woman who kills with a poison pill every time, because she can't use her sexuality to get close to targets, since that would be politically incorrect. And guns are phallos objects, so she wont use those.".

The threats and obnoxious responses this girl received are ridiculous, downright stupid and some of them criminal.
But here's the thing... The male target audience of 25-35 don't want their wives and girlfriends in their games, they want fantasies and amazing situations that aren't part of their everyday life. You *can't* sell them games that Anita wants.

The other ting is that any man who's had a girlfriend or wife, knows the feeling of them encroaching on your territory, your place of silence and focus. When girls like Anita make an accusing video like that, men take it personally, because it's another one of those annoying cries for attention(Not saying it is, I'm saying it LOOKS like it).

I'm bisexual, I've been in more relationships than I remember, and every one that's been with a girl/woman has been some of the most stressful and nerve-wracking of my life. Intelligent, thoughtful and "enlightened" women who've always been chillaxed and calm at the beginning and as time goes they become more demanding because I'm not treating them as beneath me like they apparently want - without ever saying it directly. Hell, I don't even think they know it.

I'm done with them, I'm sticking to guys now and life is great. We don't have to be afraid of crossing some weird undefined lines, we don't have to get angry with eachother silently because the other forgot something or didn't take special considerate care.

So dear Anita, if you want to start a discussion, then feel free to do so. Don't be offensive and pretentious while you do it, or no one will give you even half a chance to explain yourself.

Boy, that escalated quickly.

I'm always amazed at how a woman talking about anything regarding gender roles or portrayal of women will be overcome by "nazi feminism cunt kitchen slave" vitriol before a full sentence or thesis can be stated. There are valid questions here to be asked before giving a donation to her (as with any kickstarter) but they're all missed by knee-jerk douchebaggery and "hilarious" sexist jokes.

The internet is just a cesspit sometimes. Lots of sad, pitiful people that have serious issues with women.

Smeatza:

What is the point in the videos if not educate and appeal to those who currently see sexist ideals as acceptable? Or make those that unintentionally support sexist ideals aware that they are doing so?
If their sole purpose is just a big pat on the back for those who are against sexism then it seems like an exercise in futility to me.

As I've said before, if someone won't watch a video because it contradicts what they want to believe, that isn't the problem of the video maker.

Also, as I've said before, the world isn't divided into ardent sexists who won't watch it and fervent anti-sexists who will. That isn't how the world or viewership or documentaries work. I have no idea why you are convinced there is literally not one person who will watch it who isn't already decided one way or the other. She (the documentary maker) has stated her previous materials have been used by parents, in classrooms and by charities and other organizations to discuss gender issues, this will be no different only hopefully with higher production values and more solid research.

Smeatza:
So whenever I see a project like this, where a bias is apparent from the word go, and a single type of media is singled out from all others. The lost potential does disappoint me.

Staying within one medium is a perfectly reasonable way to want to focus a discussion on a broader topic. Otherwise the discussion becomes too broad for the average person to keep the overarching point in mind (an issue that's even a problem when focusing on just video games, due to their variety; but at least keeping it to one medium limits that somewhat). Considering this is a very complex issue, breaking it up and examining cross-sections, rather than trying to examine the entirety of human existence, is much more effective at driving one's points across.

Plus, the video game community as a whole (i.e., generally, not entirely) tends to be a lot less open to gender discussions that communities for other media (in part because it's a lot younger and hasn't had equal time to deal with the issue), so it makes sense to target the video game community for this particular phenomenon, rather than to target books or films.

Smilomaniac:
The other ting is that any man who's had a girlfriend or wife, knows the feeling of them encroaching on your territory, your place of silence and focus. When girls like Anita make an accusing video like that, men take it personally, because it's another one of those annoying cries for attention(Not saying it is, I'm saying it LOOKS like it).

If you feel as though your significant other's desire to share hobbies with you is "enroaching on your territory," that says something about you more than it says about him/her.

Also based on your ridiculous amount of bias, I don't think you're qualified to indicate why men take it personally. That is the most ridiculous claim I've ever seen.

Oskuro:
No no, please, there is no problem. Equality has been reached and feminists are just exaggerating!
Studies pointing at how women are at a massive disadvantage worldwide in issues like employment, healthcare or their right to free speech are obviously bullshit, I mean, what kind of legitimacy do organizations like the UN have to make such assessments?

What about the causes that the good ones among those studies who actually look for causality ussually find? Those are generally that women don't negotiate for a raise as hard as men do, are too soft or pushy in management, more prone to interupt their careers and want to work in parttime more often and other personal factors.

All those things are personal choice, not some form of oppression.

Come to think of it I've never really encountered any study which proven institutionalised discrimination against women on a labour market in any egalitarian western society, outside of silly religious regulations in some countries (think the getting sacked for contraceptives in the US).

So my first question ussually is: Discrimination against women? Nice. Be the first to show us where it is please?


Don't please don't respond with general statements if you fail to turn up said examples okay? It happens too often people search, can't find evidence of institutionalised discrimination, and then resort to 'but don't you know I'm right?!' type of statements because they can't admit that they were just assuming the existance of such discrimination.

Blablahb:
Well, what's there to say? People are sick and tired of extremist feminists making up myths about oppression and conspiracies against women, just to prevent having to acknowledge the unspeakable, namely that women themselves make their role, accept their role themselves, and actively work to reinforce that 'role' constantly.

Or in short: doing whatever the radical feminists are angry about, to themselves.

LiquidGrape:
On a related note, ironically enough, modern feminism believes that men are more than capable of transcending these institutionalised roles to which they are expected to adhere. Feminism actually acknowledges the agency of men, and their status as equals.
And yet feminism is accused of misandry.

Which is extremely, shockingly dumb a point of view because the enemy is not 'the men', but religion. It's religion which preaches taboo on all sex and the blame of any sexual transgression with women. It's also religion which teaches women are inferior, so probably not as entitled to the integrity of their body as men.

Quite frankly, merely speaking of feminist theories of 'rape culture' is deeply offensive and rude. You're insulting half the human population, while ignoring the real problem. I myself have uncovered sexual abuse on two occasions (yay for growing up in retarded Christian villages) and the shit that has cost me over the course of years... It cost so very much, money, time, emotionally... And in comes some twat who claims that I'm part of a 'rape culture' because of my gender.

Let me be short about that: Anyone who believes in 'rape culture' theories lacks any form of decency, and should be ignored.

Less rant'ish: I've always wondered what it is why feminists twist and bend themselves into such corners to find a culprit while they don't dare to attack religion at all, while it's no doubt their main enemy.

Wow, someone else who doesn't understand rape culture.

1.) Being a guy does not make you part of rape culture by default. Your actions do. Many guys are part of rape culture. Many make a conscious effort to not be.

2.) Women can perpetuate rape culture as well. Again, rape culture is not just "all men create rape culture," it's an intersecting dynamic of how society as a whole acts.

3.) Rape (as in, actual rape, not just rape culture) is overwhelmingly performed by men (90+%) against women.

4.) What feminists do you know? There are plenty of atheist feminists. I'd even say that MOST feminists acknowledge that religious systems are one of the key proponents of patriarchy. Since, well, they are.

That you somehow believes feminists don't attack religion and that you believe that rape culture is just a male thing shows that you don't understand jack shit about the topic, sorry. Educate yourself.

Evan Waters:

RabbidKuriboh:
ugh feminism was relevant when women didn't have civil rights equal to men,now that they do it isn't

Do they? When did this happen?

There's not even an equivalent of the Civil Rights Act for women. The Equal Rights Amendment was passed but never ratified.

Not an American,sorry in my country they do.

And please specify what exactly women aren't allowed to do in the states that makes them 2nd class citzens?

Whoops, wrong thread, please ignore.

JerrytheBullfrog:

Because like most (all?) scientific departments, they tend to focus exclusively on the contributions of male scientists, with any work by women brushed under the table. How many times do you learn about Ada Lovelace in CompSci?

I didn't ask you about compsci, I asked you about astrophysics and geology. Tell me how the study of rocks is a gender studies department. I didn't realize that learning about sedimentary and metamorphic rocks could be a basis for form a gender preference.

JerrytheBullfrog:

Strawman argument.

No, I'm just trying to grasp your idea of feminism.

JerrytheBullfrog:
Feminism is about gender equality in its ultimate point. However, since women are the marginalized sex, it is more concerned with their rights and issues because *they have further to go*.

So then I was wrong before when I described your idea of feminism being about the equality of women, you believe that the ultimate goal of feminism is about gender equality, correct? If so, then the women should focus on how men are depicted in games as well.

JerrytheBullfrog:

It educates. It makes people think about things they don't question due to their privilege. That's the most important part. Way more than crying about perceived inequality when we're already a lot more equal.

Really? It seems from looking at this thread that it just irritates people.

JerrytheBullfrog:

The entire point of the article is that rape and sexual assault *do not exist in a vacuum.* There is a culture around us that enables it, that encourages it however subtly - by questioning rape victims when we wouldn't, say, doubt the word of someone that he was mugged.

To that end, one can promote rape culture without being a rapist. Without ever actually mentioning rape. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Then the point is shit. Me playing video games doesn't promote rape anymore than it promotes grand theft or genocide. You sound like Fox News right now.

JerrytheBullfrog:

Blablahb:
Well, what's there to say? People are sick and tired of extremist feminists making up myths about oppression and conspiracies against women, just to prevent having to acknowledge the unspeakable, namely that women themselves make their role, accept their role themselves, and actively work to reinforce that 'role' constantly.

Or in short: doing whatever the radical feminists are angry about, to themselves.

LiquidGrape:
On a related note, ironically enough, modern feminism believes that men are more than capable of transcending these institutionalised roles to which they are expected to adhere. Feminism actually acknowledges the agency of men, and their status as equals.
And yet feminism is accused of misandry.

Which is extremely, shockingly dumb a point of view because the enemy is not 'the men', but religion. It's religion which preaches taboo on all sex and the blame of any sexual transgression with women. It's also religion which teaches women are inferior, so probably not as entitled to the integrity of their body as men.

Quite frankly, merely speaking of feminist theories of 'rape culture' is deeply offensive and rude. You're insulting half the human population, while ignoring the real problem. I myself have uncovered sexual abuse on two occasions (yay for growing up in retarded Christian villages) and the shit that has cost me over the course of years... It cost so very much, money, time, emotionally... And in comes some twat who claims that I'm part of a 'rape culture' because of my gender.

Let me be short about that: Anyone who believes in 'rape culture' theories lacks any form of decency, and should be ignored.

Less rant'ish: I've always wondered what it is why feminists twist and bend themselves into such corners to find a culprit while they don't dare to attack religion at all, while it's no doubt their main enemy.

Wow, someone else who doesn't understand rape culture.

1.) Being a guy does not make you part of rape culture by default. Your actions do. Many guys are part of rape culture. Many make a conscious effort to not be.

2.) Women can perpetuate rape culture as well. Again, rape culture is not just "all men create rape culture," it's an intersecting dynamic of how society as a whole acts.

3.) Rape (as in, actual rape, not just rape culture) is overwhelmingly performed by men (90+%) against women.

4.) What feminists do you know? There are plenty of atheist feminists. I'd even say that MOST feminists acknowledge that religious systems are one of the key proponents of patriarchy. Since, well, they are.

That you somehow believes feminists don't attack religion and that you believe that rape culture is just a male thing shows that you don't understand jack shit about the topic, sorry. Educate yourself.

1: your right being simply male doesn't mean you contribute to rape culture, however according to mainstream feminists being a masculine, heterosexual man who doesn't completely agree with whatever feminists say, dose. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHETvyk6eA

2: really, because every time iv seen "rape culture" presnted, it is always presented as a problem with men, women are never mentioned.

3: now this is something i think everyone should be aware of. The definition of rape in the UN, UK, US and just about every country around the world is that of gender exclusivity. for instance the definition of rape in the UK is this.

Definition of rape section 1 Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Archbold 2004, 20-5)

The offence applies to the rape of a woman or the rape of another man.

The offence of rape was restated in Section 142 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 to include anal sexual intercourse with another man without consent. Where anal intercourse takes place without consent, you should charge rape contrary to section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and not buggery contrary to section 12 of that Act.

Following R v R [1992] A.C. 599 and the removal of the word "unlawful" from the definition of rape it is clear that a husband may be prosecuted for raping his wife.

A boy under 14 is now capable in law of sexual intercourse - Sexual Offences Act 1993, sections 1 and 2 Archbold 2004, 20-23.

A woman may be convicted as an aider and abettor.

( http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_rape/#Definition_of_rape )

now i don't know about you, but that clearly says that only men can be rapists. a woman according to it can aid and abet it but simply for the fact that she is female, even if she drugs a man or forces herself on top of him then she cannot be a rapist,. because y'know, men enjoy being violated.

and it is on these grounds i say bollocks to that 90% figure because according to the people that record that figure only one gender is capable of rape! so how on hearth is that figure going to be ACCURATE!?! Also if rape culture exists, then why is rape held up there with murder as one of the most despicable of crimes and can get you life in prison where you will be beaten by other inmates for it?

4: im not going to touch the religious side. there are plenty of non religious feminists and MRA's BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

Patriarchy theory however will take me all day to write so ill just link to these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV8F0TSLwOY&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sAomeiTOKI&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBgcjtE0xrE&feature=plcp

JerrytheBullfrog:

bringer of illumination:

"OH NO! PEOPLE ARE BEING MEAN AND WACIST ON THE INTERWEBS!!!" You might as well link to any given thread on fucking 4chan and call that "Journalism".

I frankly can't fucking believe that this article was approved.

I dunno, I think a huge, ORGANIZED backlash that includes mass reporting of her videos to YouTube as hate speech and defamation of her Wikipedia page is actually pretty newsworthy.

Father Time:

JerrytheBullfrog:

Sources for the 1/4 claim listed here.

1994? Oh so it's just really out of date now. Look at how low rape rates have fallen

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/viortrdtab.cfm

JerrytheBullfrog:

Rape jokes are bullshit anyway. OH NOES WE CANT MAKE LIGHT OF ONE OF THE WORST THINGS A PERSON CAN GO THROUGH BAWWWWW

No it's more like "WAHH we hate this kind of dark humor, quick make up some bullshit about how it's harmful so we can justify a campaign against it"

Father Time:

Homework does not entail reading biased as fuck people who already agree with you.

He quite clearly already knows what the smurfette principle is, but he disagrees with you so you gotta call him a sexist.

JerrytheBullfrog:

Homework DOES entail reading stuff from people who know a hell of a lot more about the subject and have thought about it more than you ever will. Knowing *what* the Smurfette Principle is and knowing *why* it is wrong and *why* his usage of it as a defense there was fucked up are different things.

Why can't you just explain it or link to the explanations yourself at the very least? This is basically "you do the research for my claims"

JerrytheBullfrog:

But please, by all means continue to be the rape apologist.

A rape apologist? If you don't know the difference between fictional jokes and actual rape ... you're a probably a danger to others and should be monitored at all times.

1.) Less than half of rapes ever go reported. Things do not magically fix themselves in a decade and a half. (Also, the sources are all at the bottom.)

2.) Got it. So having your pwecious widdle jokes is more important to you than the comfort and safety of people who have been through one of the most traumatic experiences possible. One in six women in the united states are raped. (The 1/4 stat, looking at it, is about college students.) *You know someone who has been raped*, odds are. And how do you think your pwecious wape jokes make her feel? Oh, what's that? You didn't think of that? great job.

3.) It is not my responsibility to educate you. Become a better person.

4.) Yep, a rape apologist. Again, read the "rape culture" article. Promoting a culture that trivializes rape, even in little ways, allows that culture to thrive, and subsequently makes it more likely that women will be abused. Sexual assault and rape DO NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM.

Helmholtz Watson:
...uh..lol. Please explain to me how astrophysics is a Men's Gender Studies department, or how geology is a Men's Gender Studies department.

Because like most (all?) scientific departments, they tend to focus exclusively on the contributions of male scientists, with any work by women brushed under the table. How many times do you learn about Ada Lovelace in CompSci?

So in your opinion, feminism is for women's equality and if they help men its a plus but not it's primary intention, correct? If that is how you view feminism, then your right to say that she shouldn't be expected to also focus on male gender issues. However, if I have misread this and your saying feminism is about gender equality, then I see no reason why she shouldn't devote time to male gender issues in video games as well.

Strawman argument. Feminism is about gender equality in its ultimate point. However, since women are the marginalized sex, it is more concerned with their rights and issues because *they have further to go*.

Screaming ABOUT TEH WEMONZ doesn't do much either besides create really long escapist threads.

It educates. It makes people think about things they don't question due to their privilege. That's the most important part. Way more than crying about perceived inequality when we're already a lot more equal.

Here's an interesting study from... a year ago? Two years? I don't remember - In a classroom/business environment, if men and women speak out exactly 50/50, where half the conversation is from women and half from men, men will perceive it as women "dominating" the conversation. They only think it's equal when it falls down to somewhere from 30-40% on the womens' part. Similarly, a group of people where exactly half are men and half are women will be perceived by the men as being mostly women.

We see equality as being unequal for us because we are so used to being the default.

Helmholtz Watson:

JerrytheBullfrog:
snip

The article was crap, apparently rape culture doesn't have to have rape involved? Then it isn't rape culture!

>The Point

>Your Head

The entire point of the article is that rape and sexual assault *do not exist in a vacuum.* There is a culture around us that enables it, that encourages it however subtly - by questioning rape victims when we wouldn't, say, doubt the word of someone that he was mugged.

To that end, one can promote rape culture without being a rapist. Without ever actually mentioning rape. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

1. I didn't say it was fixed I said those stats are out of date (and it is), oh and they got those stats I mentioned through surveys so it accounts for not reporting.
2. Trigger warning got it, unfortunately any discussion of rape can do it. Ps rape victims are not a hive mind, there have been some that defended rape jokes. Although I only tell those jokes to people who want to hear them so its a moot point.
3. It's not my job to browse websites because you're not willing to make an argument. Learn to debate.
4. Rape culture is that made up reason to be against rape jokes. If you think rape jokes make people not care about real rape you need to prove it. Also please look up what an apologist is. It's like saying that defending GTA makes you a murder apologist.

Danzavare:
I hate to interrupt but what do you mean by 'objective point of view'? I understand the idea of fact checking insofar as physical realities (Release dates, platform, etc) but I don't understand what you mean by an objective point of view.

Ethnography and historiography are just two academic fields that deal with the inherent subjectivity of texts. Your choice in words, subject matter and selection of evidence all alter the information you present. Even science reports are marked by their conscious decision to use 'scientific writing conventions' to present their information, and tend to have a particular aim or hypothesis in mind (At the necessary exclusion of others). Subjectivity doesn't negate the value of a discussion, it's an inherent part of it.

To keep to the topic, how do you find the objective facts behind the social implications of games? Sure, you can work toward an intuitive and intelligent interpretation of a game and how this may sit with its broader context (As I imagine is her aim), but I can't see how you can pull out an objective account or point of view from it.

My issue is purely with the format of her documentary. The best way I can put it is it's like the difference between Animal Face Off and Life on Earth. One is a documentary series based on reality, the other is a series that gives you reality.
This is all my assumption though, the end product could be entirely different than what I'm predicting.

Danzavare:
When you say people who need to hear it, do you mean the ones in your other post?

I mean those who are unware or apathetic towards the issue.

Smeatza:
I think you're forgetting all the people who don't have a strong opinion either way. It's perfectly plausible to think that the video is aimed to educate and inform people who either aren't aware of the issue, haven't given it adequate thought or know the issue, but don't yet grasp its serious implications for gaming and gaming's place in society. I'd hate to think how difficult progress would be if the only way to it was through stubborn minorities (In any issues there are always people who will never see reason). As far as getting many people to see it I'm thinking it'll be more a marketing problem than anything else.

In all honesty I'm not sure I'll agree with everything she will say, but I think it's definitely a debate worth having.

I would agree, it's certainly a debate worth having. I'm just not so sure her videos will be that effective in encouraging debate.

PiCroft:
As I've said before, if someone won't watch a video because it contradicts what they want to believe, that isn't the problem of the video maker.

It is the problem of the video maker, if somone won't watch a video due to how it is presented.

PiCroft:
Also, as I've said before, the world isn't divided into ardent sexists who won't watch it and fervent anti-sexists who will. That isn't how the world or viewership or documentaries work. I have no idea why you are convinced there is literally not one person who will watch it who isn't already decided one way or the other. She (the documentary maker) has stated her previous materials have been used by parents, in classrooms and by charities and other organizations to discuss gender issues, this will be no different only hopefully with higher production values and more solid research.

I don't understand where you are getting this from.
A number of people will not take this seriously as they will see it as an attack on, rather than a look into the gaming industy and gaming as a hobby.
I'm not saying the world is split into two sides, I'm not saying there's only two types of people who will watch this.
I'm saying that some of what I thought would be her preferred audience will not give this any credit due to how it is being presented.
This is just a prediction though, like I've said the end product could be vastly different to what I'm expecting.

minuialear:
Staying within one medium is a perfectly reasonable way to want to focus a discussion on a broader topic. Otherwise the discussion becomes too broad for the average person to keep the overarching point in mind (an issue that's even a problem when focusing on just video games, due to their variety; but at least keeping it to one medium limits that somewhat). Considering this is a very complex issue, breaking it up and examining cross-sections, rather than trying to examine the entirety of human existence, is much more effective at driving one's points across.

Plus, the video game community as a whole (i.e., generally, not entirely) tends to be a lot less open to gender discussions that communities for other media (in part because it's a lot younger and hasn't had equal time to deal with the issue), so it makes sense to target the video game community for this particular phenomenon, rather than to target books or films.

While I cannot disagree with anything here. I still feel that singleing out a particular form of media will make those who enjoy it feel victimised, and therefore less receptive to legitimate points.
Maybe that's necessary though. The sheer amount of people I've had disagreeing with me in this thread makes me think people will be more receptive to her videos than I suspect.
I'd still like to see somone address this issue in a more investigative manner though.

minuialear:

Smilomaniac:
The other ting is that any man who's had a girlfriend or wife, knows the feeling of them encroaching on your territory, your place of silence and focus. When girls like Anita make an accusing video like that, men take it personally, because it's another one of those annoying cries for attention(Not saying it is, I'm saying it LOOKS like it).

If you feel as though your significant other's desire to share hobbies with you is "enroaching on your territory," that says something about you more than it says about him/her.

Also based on your ridiculous amount of bias, I don't think you're qualified to indicate why men take it personally. That is the most ridiculous claim I've ever seen.

The funny thing is that you're being very misandrous. You're assuming something that I'm not saying.

You don't have to do everything together: That's puppylove. It has no basis in a mature relationship. It's inconsiderate people that meddle in the interests of others without a sliver of a thought to what the other person feels.

It's not about a partner asking if they can join you, because that's one of the sweetest things a person can do and I absolutely welcome it.
It's when your girlfriend nags you when you're taking a break while playing games, fixing your car/motorcycle, doing your hobby and not letting you have that moment of pause, because it's not as important as whatever she wants. Please try to understand that these women not only exist, but are common. Yes, I know it's a shock, but it's not only men who can be inconsiderate douchebags.
Far from all relationships are based on Hollywood-inspired true love and is more based on not wanting to be alone. People shack up and they live with one another, with someone to feel comfortable with and can rely on in time of need. They are full of conflict, some minor, some serious, but that's just how it is.

Your blatant attempt at white-knighting is an obvious indication of your inexperience in relationships. Either that, or you've been lucky enough to be with someone where everything is perfect. In that case, congratulations. You're far less qualified to represent the majority of your gender.

Now, if you'll take off your whiteknight shades for a second, you'll realize that I'm talking about why people are reacting the way they are, why there's so much animosity and why Anita is doing this in a very biased and spiteful way.

Helmholtz Watson:

Then the point is shit. Me playing video games doesn't promote rape anymore than it promotes grand theft or genocide. You sound like Fox News right now.

What? How did you get GTA into this? He said: you can promote rape culture without literally being a rapist. By holding rape victims to absurdly high standards of belief compared to, say mugging victims, by suggesting women are to blame when someone rapes them etc.

Every time rape culture is brought up, people flock to deny it because they seem to think it declares every man an unequivocal rapist, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding what rape culture actually is. Your immediate jump to your own defence against something no-one is accusing you is evidence of that.

"Would be better if she filmed this in the kitchen," quips max 547490.

"She is a JEW," 614streets adds helpfully.

"ask money for making a fucking vlog? And you made it in a way that women should pledge for not being dominated by man. Smart and evil plan. You are the reason why womens are the inferior gender for the whole history of mankind," points out Armisael.

"fuck you feminist fucks you already have equality. Infact yo have better shit than most males, be glad what you got bitch. Also if you want equality, we talk to men like that too, so fuck off faggo.. I mean lesbian," says Arto572.

">video games are about doing hard work, thus men are a better choice you just went full retard," added ToxicHedgie.

"1:09 This controller looks so unused. I doubt that she is a real gamer. She just looked for a niche where she can distinguish herself with her feminist propaganda," is Tig3r0's expert opinion.

"Fucking downvoted and flagged for terrorism. Dumb ass nazi cunt," adds BoxxyizQueen.

Ah, true face of gaming community. Isn't it beautiful?

Father Time:

Helmholtz Watson:
...uh..lol. Please explain to me how astrophysics is a Men's Gender Studies department, or how geology is a Men's Gender Studies department.

Because like most (all?) scientific departments, they tend to focus exclusively on the contributions of male scientists, with any work by women brushed under the table. How many times do you learn about Ada Lovelace in CompSci?

My college does not have a history of Computer Science course, but it does have a CompSci major. I'd imagine its similar for other majors and other colleges.

Oh and as a general rule of thumb if you're going to say that a study says X you should link to it.

For some time I've been of the opinion that the most effective way to destroy a person's will to live is to force them to spend about half an hour reading Youtube comments. I'd really like to see something like this implemented - if it results in just one moron becoming aware of their own stupidity, I'd declare it a success.

THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS

seriously guys, be mature. no death threats, k?

PiCroft:

Helmholtz Watson:

Then the point is shit. Me playing video games doesn't promote rape anymore than it promotes grand theft or genocide. You sound like Fox News right now.

What? How did you get GTA into this? He said: you can promote rape culture without literally being a rapist. By holding rape victims to absurdly high standards of belief compared to, say mugging victims, by suggesting women are to blame when someone rapes them etc.

Every time rape culture is brought up, people flock to deny it because they seem to think it declares every man an unequivocal rapist, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding what rape culture actually is. Your immediate jump to your own defence against something no-one is accusing you is evidence of that.

Then explain to me what rape culture is, because the other guy is doing a poor job at it.

Grey Carter:

Therumancer:
Ask yourself this question Grey, whether you agree with her or not, how would you try and shut her down if you were of a mind to do so? You can say you wouldn't engage in E-intimidation, but at the same time it's not like there are any other recourses.

I wouldn't. I'm not so insecure in my views that I feel the need to censor people who disagree with me.

Not quite what we're talking about. My very tone makes it rather clear that I'm not talking about censorship, but rather shutting down a message someone is trying to convey. While someone DOES have the right to be a rabble rouser and seek attention through the media and so on, people also have the right to confront it and try and yank their platform through their own freedom of speech.

So really, what would you do in order to try and shut down a message you didn't agree with? Ignore the specifics of this issue. Are you going to say that you've never attacked someone you disagree with, through mockery and parody if nothing else? Granted your not as low-brow as these guys are but you've definatly made some rather biting criticisms of the gaming industry and the positions it's been taking through your work. I'd argue it's similar to what you or Penny Arcade have been doing in your own way for years, just not as sophisticated, and from an alternative viewpoint.

In case there is some confusion, I want to make it 100% clear that I think women do have a place in gaming. What I disagree with is that gaming represents some kind of anti-female bastion or negative messages. Largely because I've spent a VERY long time looking at the things women create on their own, and oftentimes for a female audience. The basic logic being espoused here if applied to media in general would have 90% of the paranormal romance stuff, and shows like "True Blood" under fire. From my perspective aiming at gaming is being done because it's one of the few areas (for reasons I will not go into) where this kind of a message will be taken seriously and given a platform. If she had chosen to say target other media the work work of Laura K. Hamilton, Kim Harrison, Charlene Harris, Julie Bell, CLAMP, or numerous creators and rabid fan bases would shut her down much faster than we're seeing here and in a fashion that makes this seem bloody polite.

Now, it's fine if you and others disagree on this specific issue, but don't misunderstand my message or assume that I believe in the literal truth of the counter attacks being made so much as the opposition they represent. I see myself as a defender of gaming, for both men and women, and this being a threat of a sort best dealt with through fan rage as actual censorship is not an issue.

In the end we'll doubtlessly have to agree to disagree, and you (and others) might not see the distinction I'm pointing out, but to me it's important. I treat this as any other attempt to modify media content (which is what she ultimatly wants, she's pushing for a form of censorship herself whenyou get down to it). To me claiming that gaming is sexist in it's current form is like claiming that gaming is too violent. Claiming it encourages mistreatment of women and negative perceptions of them, is like claiming video game violence turns people into killers and violent offenders. I view her just as I do Jack Thomson, it's just she's coming from a differant angle.

@Feminist Frequency.

If you're reading this, then, thank you, for taking the time to click the link in my Youtube comment, to see what I have to say in its fullest. It tells me that you have an open mind, which is good, because it means you might listen to what I have to say.

I'm an advocator of free speech, and while I'm usually the first to jump on any feministic remark like it directly insulted me, you have the right of free speech too. Simply put: the reception you're getting from your videos, while keeping in mind that this is Youtube, and they have their own rights too, only helps strengthen your argument.

When the top comment of your video is something that can get you fired for sexual harassment in a work environment, even I, the manliest defender of man, have to step back and take a sideways look at it all.

I'll save my disagreements with the video (though, really, they're mainly minor nitpicks,) and maybe walk away from this with some more insight and a more open mind. While, yes, I see the counterargument that is 'we're men and we like boobs and have the right to stare at them', there seems to be nothing in that video that says that right will be taken away. Which is good; see the right to free expression.

Instead, your video seems to be aimed more at creating a more diverse use of the female character archetype in general in video games, and expanding the sub-archetypes in the industry, eventually translating into a wider range of female characters.

It seems to me like, whether you want it to or not, you're not asking for the Mostly-Naked-Warrior or Damsel-in-distress or generally weak archetypes to go away. It seems more like you're asking for more characters to pop up who break those archetypes, are asking writers to be creative, and create more characters who are more diverse, like Leona from League of Legends.

So I'll support your project. I can't put in much now, but:

While I don't consider the industry to be very creatively stagnant, as others do, I do think there's alot of stagnation in the writing right now. It seems to me like most writers just pick out a random trope from TVTropes, and base a character around that. The same video series could probably be brought up in the portrayal of African American characters in games, and how we need more diversity, for example.

So, just to clarify, you're getting support from someone whose, as he's typing this, is running Tera in the background, and is playing a female Castanic warrior. Someone who frequently offers counterarguments to feminism and accuses most people of being white knights.

But, on that same note, someone who took one look at those comments and went 'yeah, enough is enough. Debating, arguing even, is one thing. Ignoring the points entirely and telling someone to go back to the kitchen, that's just immature.'

Also, I'll leave this message on this note:

As a writer, I already try to include a diverse variety of female characters in my writing. In fact, my deepest characters are female, and one of which, is the Aspect of freakin' Death, and she's strong, cold, a bit flawed, only a little crazy, and doesn't cook. She also killed the Grim Reaper and took his place. As a writer... I'll keep this video in mind, and at the very least, use it as enlightenment for the ideas in my work. My cast is diverse as is, but maybe I can push it farther.

In other words, I was inspired by someone who supports feminism, and I never thought I'd see the day.

inb4 I'm called a white knight whose trying to get elaid and should grow a spine (balls) and be a member of the true master race

give me a break, I thought this forum was full of autistics, not stupid people.

godofslack:
For my sanity's sake I like to think that all the stupid comments on youtube are caused by a god, with a million arms, that has nothing better to do than troll.

Nope. That's just how people really are when they can get away with it. Go outside, look around. For nine people you see out of ten, this is what's boiling right below the surface. Enjoy this thought.

i'm of several minds on this:
1) giving someone this much shit is almost never called for
2) on the other hand, this is youtube we're talking about and if you can't handle hateful people and trolls you should probably go elsewhere
3) i can see why people would be opposed to her talking about video games from just watching her kick starter tie in, she has very clearly staged this set up. everything is too clean to be a gamer set up, i.e. none of the controllers seem to have any wear on them and if games were anything more than just a passing fancy there should be very clear visible signs of use; also she is clearly not playing anything in the video. i'm not saying the hate speech is justified, but if someone was going to seriously be lecturing you about something very important to you, you'd be mad if you thought that it was a subject they had no prior foray in. say you're a physicist, you wouldn't want a plumber to lecture you on string theory.

personally, i don't care. i've been too tired lately to do or say anything other than this, and after this i'm detaching myself from the subject.

Helmholtz Watson:

PiCroft:

Helmholtz Watson:

Then the point is shit. Me playing video games doesn't promote rape anymore than it promotes grand theft or genocide. You sound like Fox News right now.

What? How did you get GTA into this? He said: you can promote rape culture without literally being a rapist. By holding rape victims to absurdly high standards of belief compared to, say mugging victims, by suggesting women are to blame when someone rapes them etc.

Every time rape culture is brought up, people flock to deny it because they seem to think it declares every man an unequivocal rapist, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding what rape culture actually is. Your immediate jump to your own defence against something no-one is accusing you is evidence of that.

Then explain to me what rape culture is, because the other guy is doing a poor job at it.

Please read this. It explains the concept a lot better than I can.

Helmholtz Watson:

PiCroft:

Helmholtz Watson:

Then the point is shit. Me playing video games doesn't promote rape anymore than it promotes grand theft or genocide. You sound like Fox News right now.

What? How did you get GTA into this? He said: you can promote rape culture without literally being a rapist. By holding rape victims to absurdly high standards of belief compared to, say mugging victims, by suggesting women are to blame when someone rapes them etc.

Every time rape culture is brought up, people flock to deny it because they seem to think it declares every man an unequivocal rapist, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding what rape culture actually is. Your immediate jump to your own defence against something no-one is accusing you is evidence of that.

Then explain to me what rape culture is, because the other guy is doing a poor job at it.

Helmholtz Watson:

PiCroft:

Helmholtz Watson:

Then the point is shit. Me playing video games doesn't promote rape anymore than it promotes grand theft or genocide. You sound like Fox News right now.

What? How did you get GTA into this? He said: you can promote rape culture without literally being a rapist. By holding rape victims to absurdly high standards of belief compared to, say mugging victims, by suggesting women are to blame when someone rapes them etc.

Every time rape culture is brought up, people flock to deny it because they seem to think it declares every man an unequivocal rapist, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding what rape culture actually is. Your immediate jump to your own defence against something no-one is accusing you is evidence of that.

Then explain to me what rape culture is, because the other guy is doing a poor job at it.

"Rape Culture" is a term used by some feminists to dramatize the idea they present that society is unfairly weighted in favor of men, and even if unintentionally strives to force women into a submissive position. In this case despite the strong language it doesn't actually have to do with "rape" in a literal sense, though the overall implication is that this alleged forced submission leads to the expectation women are there to be used and yes, raped.

In sociology where it's covered (or was when I was in school, when the term was first appearing) it's a similar variation on a "straw man" arguement used by various minority groups, most similar to "invisible knapsack" theory.

"Invisible Knapsack" theory is all the things you as a member of the majority take for granted that is intimidating to a minority. An example would be how if you walk into a store and ask to see the person in charge, it's very likely that the person you wind up dealing with is going to be a member of your ethnicity. You don't think anything of that as a member of the majority and take comfort in it, but to someone of a differant ethnicity that very reality is intimidating in a way you can't understand. It also gets extended in more dubious directions, especially when it comes to the US, by pointing out that just about everything in the enviroment is created by or put there by white people, even in countries where we don't dominate. Electricity, Phones, etc... are all omnipresent and greatly outnumber the accomplishments of other peoples, we take comfort in this without realizing it, while other people feel intimidated. In many cases pointing out accomplishments to Arcetecture, Mathematics, and other things of other peoples involves going back centuries. While we argue Edison or Tesla, or what nation gets to claim Alexander Graham Bell given how he moved around, someone who isn't white has to deal with a modern world created entirely by other people and largely dominated by them (see the "who you get if you ask for who is in charge" bit above). The end result being that we are all racists just by existing and just don't realize it. Even pretensions of charity (helping the poor people of color in the ghettos) is a form of racism due to them needing the charity and the promotions used in order to get people to donate.... now before you argue it's BS and has been debunked heavily and ruthlessly, it's just a major philsophy.

"Rape Culture" is named to get attention for a specific point of view and make it harder to argue with due to the perception that if you argue against it "your supporting rape". In the end it pretty much involves the same kinds of arguements as the "Invisible Knapsack". The idea that if you say ask for the person in charge the vast majority of the time it will be a guy. This applies accross the spectrum to police, bosses (who you need to appeal to for a promotion), and simply who has control of most of the money and resources. Arguably as a whole men can make women do whatever they want through pressure, because they are holding all the cards and thus equality becomes a joke. Comparing the overall numbers more men tell women what to do, and are in a position of control than there are women doing the same. When compared to "The Invisible Knapsack" above those who follow this theory will argue that when it comes to minorities getting chances it's more likely to go to a guy than a girl. Thus arguements about being a minority AND a woman being a double strike.

It also expands into how attractive women have advantages, as long as they are attractive. Not so much because of literal rape, but because sex appeal can be exploited (eye candy, promotional value, etc...). An attractive woman can be on the top of the world as long as she remains that way, fingers being pointed to say the phenomena of "it girls", where an actress will stay popular as long as she's hot and seems to be availible, but if she has a couple of kids, gets old and puts on a few pounds, etc... her career falls through the floor.

Then there is of course the issue of what guys get away with (allegedly) that girls don't. The basic idea that it's socially accepted for a guy to be a drunken buffoon and get into all kinds of trouble, laughing it off with the guys, and then having life go on. Girls do that and it's somewhat differant.

Now again, this has been heavily analyzed and debunked on most levels, but it's still a popular theory.

Either "Invisible Knapsack" or "Rape Culture" can be used as an arguement to say that minorities or women should be given things, put in charge, etc... simply for the sake of equalizing things. As well as an excuse for why someone doesn't succeed (it was those evil people in the majority!), or as an attack to argue that someone doesn't deserve to be in charge or should be removed simply on the merits of being a member of the opposing group. Thus affirmitive action groups, feminists, and others who are all about power and wanting things for themselves and their groups will use the things as avenues of attack. Especially seeing as they play well to the right crowds, and the counter arguements and analysis take time that doesn't generally exist in a buzz clip or media statement. In today's media being right isn't always as important as having a point that can be made consicely in the two minutes your given for an interview on TV. It's far much easier to mention a couple of actresses not being popular anymore because they aren't as attractive as they once were, than to say point fingers at men (yesterday's sex symbols and male models) in the same boat, or make arguements about talent and pointing to the women who HAVE managed to hold onto
enduring entertainment careers.

Hopefully this helps, I know many people will disagree with me here, but this is pretty much the textbook definition of that term, and I mean that literally from when I took sociology many years ago and the term was first starting to appear (decades ago) and wasn't yet in popular use.

PiCroft:

Helmholtz Watson:

PiCroft:

What? How did you get GTA into this? He said: you can promote rape culture without literally being a rapist. By holding rape victims to absurdly high standards of belief compared to, say mugging victims, by suggesting women are to blame when someone rapes them etc.

Every time rape culture is brought up, people flock to deny it because they seem to think it declares every man an unequivocal rapist, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding what rape culture actually is. Your immediate jump to your own defence against something no-one is accusing you is evidence of that.

Then explain to me what rape culture is, because the other guy is doing a poor job at it.

Please read this. It explains the concept a lot better than I can.

That's the gayest piece of wank I have ever read. So if a girl likes it rough, she's saying rape is OK?

Fuckin aspies should get their dick wet before they talk about sexuality.

PiCroft:

Helmholtz Watson:

PiCroft:

What? How did you get GTA into this? He said: you can promote rape culture without literally being a rapist. By holding rape victims to absurdly high standards of belief compared to, say mugging victims, by suggesting women are to blame when someone rapes them etc.

Every time rape culture is brought up, people flock to deny it because they seem to think it declares every man an unequivocal rapist, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding what rape culture actually is. Your immediate jump to your own defence against something no-one is accusing you is evidence of that.

Then explain to me what rape culture is, because the other guy is doing a poor job at it.

Please read this. It explains the concept a lot better than I can.

You can't summarize it in a paragraph? That looks very long and I just want to know how I'm supposedly part of rape culture for liking video games.

Helmholtz Watson:

PiCroft:

Helmholtz Watson:
Then explain to me what rape culture is, because the other guy is doing a poor job at it.

Please read this. It explains the concept a lot better than I can.

You can't summarize it in a paragraph? That looks very long and I just want to know how I'm supposedly part of rape culture for liking video games.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you even care (which you probably don't) then you'd endeavour to spend 5 minutes reading it, cos that's how long it took me.

Also, you aren't part of rape culture because you play video games, jesus fucking christ.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . . . 35 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here